Tibetan and Himalayan Library - THL

[1] The recognition of the Qing’s cultural complexity is becoming even more evident nowadays on account of the recent sub-field of “frontier studies,” as seen in the work of David G. Atwill, The Chinese Sultanate: Islam, Ethnicity, and the Panthay Rebellion in Southwest China, 1856-1873 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005); C. Paterson Giersch, Asian Borderlands: The Transformation of Qing China’s Yunnan Frontier (Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 2006); John E. Herman, Amid the Clouds and Mist: China’s Colonization of Guizhou, 1200-1700 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007).

[2] For a critique of “multiculturalism” in the Qing, see Beatrice Bartlett, “Review of Evelyn Rawski’s The Last Emperors,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 61, no. 1 (2001): 171-83.

[3] This is the term used specifically by Crossley, but the general approach can also be seen in the founding works of the New Qing History, see R. Kent Guy, “Who were the Manchus?: A Review Essay,” Journal of Asian Studies 61, no. 1 (2002): 151-77; and Sudipta Sen, “The New Frontiers of Manchu China and the Historiography of Asian Empires,” Journal of Asian Studies 61, no. 1 (2002): 151-77.

[4] See for example Christopher P. Atwood, “‘Worshipping Grace’: Guilt and Striving in the Mongolian Language of Loyalty,” Late Imperial China 21 (2000): 86-139; Michael Chang, A Court on Horseback: Imperial Touring and the Construction of Qing Rule, 1680-1785 (Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 2007); Johan Elverskog, Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhism and the State in Late Imperial China (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2006); and Joanna Waley-Cohen, The Culture of War in China: Empire and the Military under the Qing Dynasty (New York: I. B. Tauris, 2006).

[5] For a critique of the “unitary view” as well as the issue of aristocratic nostalgia, see Robert Barnett, Lhasa: Streets with Memories (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), 5-25.

[6] Prasenjit Duara, Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 21.

[7] It is important to recognize that this critique is mainly advocated by Euroamerican scholars, while scholars from countries such as Canada and Mexico, for example, see nothing wrong with the nation. Rather, they see globalization and the hegemony of America that it entails as the more pressing concern, and thus preserving the nation remains an important intellectual endeavor. I thank my colleague Ben Johnson for bringing this to my attention.

[8] See, for example, the new scholarly focus on the Indian Ocean region in Eric Tagliacozzo, “Underneath the Indian Ocean,” The Journal of Asian Studies 67, no. 3 (2008): 1039-46.

[9] This issue has not only shaped the questions of New Qing Historians, but also the theorists of the modern Chinese nation-state. See, for example, Uradyn E. Bulag, The Mongols at China’s Edge: History and the Politics of National Unity (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002); Liu Xiaoyuan, Reins of Liberation: An Entangled History of Mongolian Independence, Chinese Territoriality, and Great Power Hegemony 1911-1950 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006).

[10] Sugata Bose, A Hundred Horizons: The Indian Ocean in the Age of Global Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006), 15.

[11] See Victor W. Turner, “The Center out There: Pilgrim’s Goal,” History of Religions 12 (1973): 191-230; Victor W. Turner, “Pilgrimages as Social Processes,” in Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975); and V. W. Turner and E. Turner, Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978).

[12] The Cult of Pure Crystal Mountain: Popular Pilgrimage and Visionary Landscape in Southeast Tibet (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 174.

[13] “Pilgrimage may be examined as one of the paradigmatic phenomena contributing to, and perhaps even to some extent engendering, the cultural unity of the Tibetans. Pilgrimage, among other things, promoted trade in both goods and information. It brought persons from far distant parts of the Tibetan world into direct contact with one another and thus militated to some extent against divisive regionalistic tendencies. By ordering the cycles of pilgrimage according to calendrical cycles, by establishing the locations visited and the routes traversed, and by promoting specific religious teachings, historical narratives, and symbolic interpretations of the landscape and the events taking place within it, the Tibetan religious world constructed for its inhabitants a common order of time, space and knowledge” (Matthew T. Kapstein, “A Pilgrimage of Rebirth Reborn: The 1992 Celebration of the Drigung Powa Chenmo,” in Buddhism in Contemporary Tibet: Religious Revival and Cultural Identity, eds. Melvyn C. Goldstein and Matthew T. Kapstein [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998], 117).

[14] David M. Farquhar, “Emperor as Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch’ing Empire.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 38, no. 1 (1978): 5-34.

[15] Natalie Köhle, “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?: Patronage, Pilgrimage and the Place of Tibetan Buddhism at the Early Qing Court,” Late Imperial China 29, no. 1 (2008): 73-119.

[16] Gray Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai Shan in the Qing: The Chinese-language Register,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011), http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5721.

[17] Isabelle Charleux, “Mongol Pilgrimages to Wutai Shan in the Late Qing Dynasty,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011), http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5712.

[18] See Hoong Teik Toh, “Tibetan Buddhism in Ming China” (Doctoral diss., Harvard University, 2004); Köhle “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?”; Peter Schwieger, “A Document of Chinese Diplomatic Relations with East Tibet during the Ming Dynasty,” in Tibetstudien: Festschrift für Dieter Schuh zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Petra Maurer and Peter Schwieger, 209-26 (Bonn: Bier’sche Verlaganstallt, 2007); Shen Weirong, “On the History of Gling tshang Principality of mDo khams during the Yuan and Ming Dynasties: Studies on Sources Concerning Tibet in Ming Shilu (I),” in Tibetstudien: Festschrift für Dieter Schuh zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Petra Maurer and Peter Schwieger (Bonn: Bier’sche Verlaganstallt, 2007); Dora C. Y. Ching, “Tibetan Buddhism and the Creation of the Imperial Image,” in Culture, Courtiers, and Competition: The Ming Court (1368-1644), ed. David M. Robinson (Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 2008); and David M. Robinson, “The Ming Court and the Legacy of the Yuan Mongols,” in Culture, Courtiers, and Competition: The Ming Court (1368-1644), ed. David M. Robinson (Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 2008).

[19] Mark C. Elliott, “Hung Up on Hung U: Manchu Views of Ming Taizu.” Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Asian Studies, 2006.

[20] Although the Ming court provided the Mongols with both Tibetan texts and monks from Beijing (see Henry Serruys, “Early Lamaism in Mongolia,” Oriens Extremus 10 [1962]: 181-216; and Henry Serruys, “Additional Note on the Origin of Lamaism in Mongolia,” Oriens Extremus 13 [1966]: 165-73), they still wanted to obtain them directly from Tibet, which the court was hesitant to allow citing security concerns (Coyiji, “Гutugar dalai blam-a aγuljaqu-yin uridaki Altan qaγan ba Töbed-ün burqan-u sasin,” Menggu xue xinxi 3 [1996]: 10-26).

[21] On the history and importance of this text, see Ronald M. Davidson, “The Litany of Names of Mañjuśrī: Text and Translation of the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti,” in Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour of R. A. Stein, ed. Michel Strickmann, Mélanges Chinois et Bouddhiques 20 (Brussels: Institute Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises, 1981), 1-69.

[22] The Mañjuśrī-​nāma-​saṃgīti was initially translated in the Yuan period, presumably by a circle of translators around Chökyi ÖzerChos kyi 'od zer between 1295-1312, and it was a later copy of this text that was reissued in 1592 in a quadralingual version. Although this 1592 edition is only slightly different than the fourteenth century version, a nearly word-for-word copy of this earlier work, now translated by Lodrö NampaBlo gros nam pa (see Alice Sárközi, “A 17th Century Mongol Mañjusrinamasamgiti with Commentary,” Acta Orientalia Hungaricae 26, no. 3 [1982]: 449-68).

[23] György Kara, The Mongol and Manchu Manuscripts and Blockprints in the Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 2004), 229.

[24] Walther Heissig, Die mongolischen Handschriften-Reste aus Olon süme Innere Mongolei (16.-17. Jhdt.) (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1976), 386, 392.

[25] Elisabetta Chiodo, The Mongolian Manuscripts on Birch Bark from Xarbuxyn Balgas in the Collection of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000), 95-97.

[26] Johan Elverskog, The Jewel Translucent Sutra: Altan Khan and the Mongols in the Sixteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 117.

[27] Junko Miyawaki, “Tibeto-Mongol Relations at the Time of the First Rje btsun dam pa Qutugtu,” In Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the IATS Narita, 1989, vol. 2, eds. Ihara Shoren and Yamaguchi Zuiho (Narita: Naritasan Shinshoji, 1992), 3-4.

[28] See Walther Heissig, Beiträge zur Übersetzungsgeschichte des mongolischen buddhistischen Kanons (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962); and Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz, “The Transmission of the Mongolian Kanjur: A Preliminary Report,” in The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism, eds. Helmut Eimer and David Germano (Leiden: Brill, 2002).

[29] The connection between the Manchus and Mañjuśrī, for example, is found in Mongolian documents from the early seventeenth century, see Cimeddorji, “Baraγun tümed-ün teüken-tü qolbuγdaqu kedün surbaljis,” in The Third International Symposium on Mongology Sponsored by Inner Mongolia: Summaries of Symposium Papers (Hohhot: University of Inner Mongolia, 1998), 324-26.

[30] In addition to the early Manchu projects described by Farquhar, Köhle and Tuttle, which involved the Mongols, we should also note that based on a manuscript now housed in Beijing we know that there was a Mongolian translation of the ten-scroll (juan) gazetteer in preparation already in 1680 (cing liyang san aγulan-u sin’e bicig, in Dumdadu ulus-un erten-ü monggol nom bicig-ün yerüngkei garcag [Catalogue of Ancient Mongolian Books and Documents of China, Beijing: Beijing Tushuguan Chubanshe, 2000] 4824). Moreover, as seen in the biography of the important Inner Mongolian lamabla ma Chagan Diyanchi, who went repeatedly to Wutai Shan at the request of the Kangxi emperor (1662-1723), it is also clear that other Mongols were also involved with the mountain long before the subsequent explosion of the Wutai Shan cult in the nineteenth century (caγan diyanci lam-a-yin namtar, Ms. Vol 1, no. 56, in Dumdadu 4761]). In particular, Gombojab, the well-known Mongol author and teacher at the Tibetan school in Beijing, compiled the Jatakas of the Five Hundred Panditas Receiving Blessings at Wutai Shan (utayisan aγula-yin adistid-tu sitüged-ece tabun jaγan bandida-yin cedig orosiba; Dumdadu 4833), which was based on the work of Lobzang Tashi and then translated into Mongolian by his student Sasana Dhara (TendzinBstan ‘dzin). In addition, a Mongolian edition of the Qianlong emperor’s (1711-1799) imperially sponsored twenty-two-scroll gazetteer of 1785 was in preparation, yet never published (on this work and a reproduction of one of its pages, see György Kara, Books of the Mongolian Nomads: More than Eight Centuries of Writing Mongolian [Bloomington: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 2005], 219-20). All of these works confirm, as Farquhar pointed out long ago, that the Manchu court and its affiliated scholars were heavily invested in the cult of Wutai Shan. Yet these works and their circulation, while no doubt important, were only part of the dynamic.

[31] Of the one hundred Mongolian Qing period stelae at Wutai Shan only three are from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the rest are from the nineteenth century (Dumdadu 12786-996 and 12610-47).

[32] This work (serigün tungγalaγ aγulan-u manjusiri laksan-tu süm-e-yin γayiqamsiγ jibqulangtu gegen düri-yin cedig ergil-ün kemjiy-e-lüge selte süsügten arad-un duraγil-i egüskegci üjesküleng secig-ün erike kemegdekü orusiba, see Walther Heissig, Die Pekinger lamaistischen Blockdrucke in mongolischer Sprache [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1954], 163-64) was commissioned by Galdan Shireetü Khutukhtu, the second ranking Mongol monk in Beijing, and written by Yeshé DöndrupYe shes don grub of the Tümed with the help of the notable Alashan scholar Agwandandar (Ngawang Tendarngag dbang bstan dar, 1759-1840). On this work, see Robert G. Service, “Notes on The Beautiful Flower Chaplet: A Nineteenth Century Mongolian Guide to the Shu-hsiang Szu of Wu-t’ai shan,” Mongolian Studies 29 (2007): 180-201.

[33] See, for example, Ragbasambo, Erten-ü burqan-u gegen ekileged boγda cinggis qaγan-u üyes-ece inaγsi blam-a gegen boγda qaγan üyes-yin yandisi-ün tobci megem-e, Ms. 4r (Dumdadu 4589), 1859.

[34] Damchø Gyatsho Dharmatala, Rosary of White Lotuses, Being the Clear Account of How the Precious Teaching of Buddha Appeared and Spread in the Great Hor Country, tr. Piotr Klafkowski (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1987), 226.

[35] On this term see Antoine Mostaert, “Note sur le cult du Viellard blanc chez Ordos,” in Studia Altaica: Festschrift für Nikolaus Poppe zum 60. Geburtstag am 8. August 1957, eds. Julius von Farkas and Omeljan Pritsak (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1957), 116.

[36] Alice Sárközi, “Incense-offering to the White Old Man,” in Documenta Barbarorum: Festschrift für Walther Heissig zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. K. Sagaster and M. Weiers (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983), 361.

[37] For example, the text Order of the Holy Panchen Erdeni, of His Brightness the Dalai Lama and of the Holy Chinggis Khan (boγda bancin erdeni dalai lam-a-yin gegen boγda cinggis qaγan-narun jarliγ-un bicig) begins: “The prophetic book of Holy Manjusri fell down onto the golden and bronze temple of Wutai Shan” (Alice Sárközi, Political Prophecies in Mongolia in the 17-20th Centuries [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992], 73). Another one, titled simply the Words of Holy Mañjuśrī (boγda manjusiri-yin jarliγ), begins “On Wutai Shan, in the Golden Temple of Tārā mother, a book fell down from the sky from above. Khans and common people! Listen to these words attentively!” (Sárközi, Political Prophecies, 81).

[38] “To the Vajra-throne of India; to Potala Mountain; to Wutai Shan; to each individually I offer a full nine aspersions” (Henry Serruys, Kumiss Ceremonies and Horse Races [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1974], 50). A similar passage is also found in the text from Üüshin banner; however, in it Wutai Shan is called the “five-peaked eastern mountain” (doron-a tabun üjügürtü aγulan; Serruys, Kumiss Ceremonies, 84).

[39] Henry Serruys, “Four Manuals for Marriage Ceremonies among the Mongols, Part 1,” Zentralasiatische Studien 8 (1974): 279.

[40] Kurtis R. Schaeffer, “Tibetan Poetry on Wutai Shan,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011), http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5719.

[41] In this regard we should also note that some of this Tibetan poetry, especially that of Rölpé DorjéRol pas rdo rje, was also translated into Mongolian (Orod-un manglai serigün aγula-yin oron-u nomlal süsüg-ün lingqu-a-yi delgeregülügci γayiqamsiγ-tu naran-u tuy-a kemekü orosiba, translated by Gelek DamchöDge legs dam chos and printed in Beijing in 1831 [Dumdadu 4837]; see also Vladimir Uspensky, Catalogue of the Mongolian Manuscripts and Xylographs in the St. Petersburg State University Library [Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1999], 282, #256).

[42] David M. Farquhar, “The Ch’ing Administration of Mongolia up to the Nineteenth Century,” (Doctoral diss., Harvard University, 1960).

[43] Elverskog, Our Great Qing, 135-46.

[44] Elverskog, Our Great Qing, 159-62.

[45] Christopher Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire (New York: Facts on File, 2004), 507. For a comprehensive study of the Mongol aristocratic order, see David Sneath, The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, & Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007).

[46] Sneath, The Headless State, 106.

[47] Lhamsuren Munkh-Erdene, “The Mongolian Nationality Lexicon: From the Chinggisid Lineage to Mongolian Nationality (from the Seventeenth to the Early Twentieth Century),” Inner Asia 8, no. 1 (2006): 51-98.

[48] Ellen McGill, “Qing Quarantine Policy: A Comparison of Inner Mongolia and Taiwan,” Unpublished paper.

[49] S. Rasidondug and Veronika Veit, Petitions of Grievances Submitted by the People (18th-beginning of 20th Century) (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1975), 77.

[50] It was a thousand-mile trip to Doloon Nuur and they needed “3 equipped and 35 unequipped camels, 47 horses, 366 ounces of silver for the cost of a complete tent-set and 28 ounces of silver for their provisions” (Rasidondug and Veit, Petitions of Grievances, 78).

[51] Rasidondug and Veit, Petitions of Grievances, 78.

[52] Munkh-Erdene, “The Mongolian Nationality Lexicon,” 91.

[53] Jeremy Prestholdt, Domesticating the World: African Consumerism and the Genealogies of Globalization (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), 91.

[54] Matthew T. Kapstein, “Just Where on Jambudvipa are We? New Geographical Knowledge and Old Cosmological Schemes in 18th century Tibet,” in Forms of Knowledge in Early Modern South Asia, ed. Sheldon Pollack (Durham: Duke University Press, forthcoming).

[55] See, for example, Patricia Berger, “Preserving the Nation: The Political Uses of Tantric Art in China,” in The Latter Days of the Law: Images of Chinese Buddhism, 850-1850, eds. Marsha Weidner et al. (Honolulu, University of Hawai’i Press, 1992); Terese Tse Bartholomew, “Thangkas of the Qianlong Period,” in Tibetan Art: Towards a Definition of Style, ed. J. C. Singer and Phillip Denwood (London: Laurence King Publishing, 1997); Patricia Berger, Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2003).

[56] See, for example, the silk appliqué tangkathang ka, which mixes Chinese and Tibetan styles (cat. 32). I thank Karl Debreczeny for bringing to my attention the mixed styles of this important piece. See the catalog in Karl Debreczeny, “Wutai Shan: Pilgrimage to Five-Peak Mountain,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011), http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5714.

[57] Roger Jackson, “Triumphalism and Ecumenism in Thu’u bkwan’s Crystal Mirror,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies 2 (2006): 1-23. www.thdl.org?id=T2720.

[58] Lubsangdambijalsan, Altan Tobci, ed., Cimeddorji, Möngkebuyan and Gerel (Kökeqota: Öbör mongγol-un soyul-un keblel-ün qoriy-a, 1998), fol 20a-b.

[59] On the issue of language among the Mongols, especially the process of Tibetanization, see Elverskog, Our Great Qing, 120-26.

[60] Elverskog, Jewel Translucent, 60-62.

[61] As an example of this development one can note the author of the 1835 Pearl Rosary, who included passages from sources as diverse as the Iledkil Sastir, the Lifanyuan zeli, the Sheng yü guang xun, the Manchu translation of the Yuan shi, direct quotations from imperial edicts of both the Kangxi and Daoguang emperors, as well as the geographical knowledge found in the work of the recently noted Sumba Khambo (see Johan Elverskog, The Pearl Rosary: Mongol Historiography in Nineteenth Century Ordos [Bloomington, IN: The Mongolia Society, 2007], 1-18).

[62] As evidenced in Martha Boyer’s extensive catalogue of Mongol jewelry it is clear there was abundant use of “Chinese” motifs, like the butterfly, the bat, and the eight auspicious signs of the Daoist immortals in Mongol jewelry, thus clearly some sort of cultural exchange taking place between Mongols and Chinese during this period (Mongol Jewellery [København: Nordisk Forlag, 1952], 181-84). More important, however, is the fact that the majority of this most distinctive of Mongol visual culture was largely produced by Chinese artisans. As Christopher Atwood has rightly noted, this close Mongol-Chinese artistic and cultural relationship throws into relief our common perception of these two groups as continually antagonistic (“Review Article of Boyer’s Mongol Jewellery.” Mongolian Studies 19 [1996]: 105-106).

[63] This Mongol fascination with Chinese literature is found not only in textual material, but also in the oral tradition, see Nasanurtin Hasbatar, Mongolische “Heftgeschichten” und chinesisiche Ritterromane: Eine Untersuchung über die chinesichen Einflüsse auf die mongolische Literatur (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999).

[64] See, for example, Johan Elverskog, “Things & the Qing: Mongol Culture in the Visual Narrative,” Inner Asia 6 (2004): 137-78.

[65] Kathryn Edgerton-Tarpley, Tears from Iron: Cultural Responses to Famine in Nineteenth-Century China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), 15-33.

[66] On the issue of Chinese culture and status among the Mongols, see Johan Elverskog, “Injannashi, the anti-Cervante,” in Biographies of Eminent Mongol Buddhists, ed. Johan Elverskog (Sankt Augustin: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, 2008), 94-100.

[67] Charles R. Bawden, Mongolian Traditional Literature: An Anthology (London: Kegan Paul, 2003), xxx-xxxiii, 559-79. On the Mongol literary use of Chinese sources, see also A. Craig Clunas, “The Prefaces to Nigen Dabqur Asar and their Chinese Antecedents,” Zentralasiatische Studien 14, no. 1 (1980): 139-94; and Charles R. Bawden, “A Chinese Source for an Episode in Injanasi’s Novel Nigen Dabqur Asar,” in Tractata Tibetica et Mongolica, eds. K. Kollmar-Paulenz and C. Peter (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002).

[68] On this issue see Zvi Ben-Dor Benite’s study of Chinese Muslims and the creation of the Han Kitab (The Dao of Muhammad: A Cultural History of Muslims in Late Imperial China [Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 2005]).

[69] Christopher P. Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire (New York: Facts on File, 2004), 131.

[70] Michael Kohn, Lama of the Gobi: The Life and Times of Danzan Rabjaa, Mongolia’s Greatest Mystical Poet (Ulaanbaatar: Maitri Books, 2006), 94, 104.

[71] Brian Baumann, Divine Knowledge: Buddhist Mathematics According to the Anonymous Manual of Mongolian Astrology and Divination (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 12.

[72] Antoine Mostaert, Manual of Mongolian Astrology and Divination (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969).

[73] On this multiplicity and its implications, see Johan Elverskog, “Mongol Time Enters a Qing World,” in Time, Temporality, and Imperial Transition, ed. Lynn Struve (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2005), 169-71.

[74] Baumann, Divine Knowledge, 11-12.

[75] Baumann, Divine Knowledge, 60ff.

[76] Walther Heissig, Catalogue of Mongol Books, Manuscripts and Xylographs (Copenhagen: The Royal Library, 1971), 192. For details on this work see Heissig, Blockdrucke, 171-72. On the state’s involvement in the medical field see also the trilingual medical manuals housed in Copenhagen (Mong. 68, Mong. 443).

[77] Charleux, “Mongol Pilgrimages to Wutai Shan in the Late Qing Dynasty.”

[78] Wen-shing Chou, “Maps of Wutai Shan: Individuating the Sacred Landscape through Color,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011), http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5713.

[79] For a description of such mixed participation in religious rituals at Wutai Shan see the biography of the first Zhangjia Khutugtu (Klaus Sagaster, Subud Erike, “ein Rosenkranz aus Perlen,” die Biographe des 1. Pekinger lCang skya Qutugtu Ngag dbang blo bzang chos ldan [Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1967], 265-68).

[80] Arjun Appadurai, “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy,” Public Culture 2, no. 2 (1990): 1-24.

[81] On the rise of localism in nineteenth century China see Steven B. Miles, “Celebrating the Yu Fan Shrine: Literati Networks and Local Identity in Early Nineteenth-Century Guangzhou,” Late Imperial China 25, no. 2 (2004): 33-73.